Mohd. Irfan And Another v. State Of Punjab And Another

2024:PHHC:059075

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M-20455-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 30.04.2024 Mohd. Irfan & another

...Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab & another

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL

Present:

Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Vinay Kumar Malhotra, DAG, Punjab.

FIR No.

Dated Police Station Section/s 03.03.2024 Dakha, District Ludhiana Rural/Ludhiana 328 & 379 IPC GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J. (Oral) 1.

The petitioners seek grant of regular bail in respect of aforementioned FIR.

2.

The FIR in question was lodged at the instance of Rajwinder Kaur, wherein it is alleged that Sahil Khan, Jugnu Pandit and Musa and two more persons had administered some intoxicating substance to the complainant on the pretext of performing Havan and had stolen gold ornaments weighing 20 Tolas and cash amount of Rs.10 lakhs. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the FIR in question came to be lodged under some misunderstanding, which has now been resolved and the matter stands amicably resolved amongst the parties. VIMAL KUMAR 2024.04.30 18:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-20455-2024 (O&M) -24.

Opposing the petition, learned State counsel submits that although the petitioners were not named in the FIR initially, but subsequently the complainant made a supplementary statement against them and even the co-accused also disclosed their names. Learned State counsel has, however, informed that both the petitioners are otherwise not involved in any other case.

5.

Today, Mr. S.S.Sarwara, Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.2/complainant and filed his Power of Attorney, which is taken on record. Learned counsel representing respondent No.2/ complainant has endorsed the factum of compromise and has stated that the complainant has no objection for grant of bail to the petitioners. 6.

This Court has considered the aforesaid submissions. 7.

Having regard to the clean antecedents of the petitioners and the fact that the matter is stated to have been compromised amongst the parties, further detention of the petitioners will not serve any useful purpose. The petition, as such, is accepted and the petitioners are ordered to be released on regular bail on their furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.

30.04.2024 (GURVINDER SINGH GILL) Vimal JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No VIMAL KUMAR 2024.04.30 18:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document